Max Blumenthal discusses why the consensus over the US-Israel partnership is unravelling as the intrusive influence of Israel is widely seen to undermine US interests. The disastrous Iran War has intensified the MAGA Civil War. Blumenthal is the editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza.
An intense discussion on escalating U.S.–Iran tensions highlights internal divisions within the U.S. military and claims of miscalculation in confronting Iran’s long-prepared defense systems. The interview argues Iran’s capabilities remain largely intact, with underground bases and strategic planning shaping its response. It emphasizes regional involvement, warning that Gulf states hosting U.S. forces are deeply entangled. The conversation frames the conflict as potentially catastrophic globally, with risks to energy routes, economies, and civilian infrastructure, while stressing that continued escalation could trigger widespread retaliation and long-term geopolitical consequences.
Jefferey examines newly surfaced internal communications suggesting that messaging around potential stroke risks following COVID-19 vaccination may have been altered at the highest levels of government, including the Joe Biden White House. Drawing on reported emails from federal health agencies, the segment explores how language describing a “moderately elevated” safety signal was revised to “slightly elevated,” raising serious questions about transparency, public health communication, and risk disclosure during the vaccine rollout.
The analysis also highlights how terminology shifts, from “potential risk” to “preliminary signal”, may have softened public perception of adverse events at a critical moment when booster doses were being distributed to tens of millions of Americans. With coordinated messaging efforts involving the CDC, FDA, and select media and expert networks, the discussion frames these developments as part of a broader strategy to manage public response rather than fully inform it.
Beyond stroke-related concerns, the conversation expands into other reported safety signals, including myocarditis and cardiovascular stress markers observed in certain populations following vaccination. Internal deliberations and delayed public warnings are presented as evidence of systemic gaps in adverse event reporting and physician awareness, potentially impacting early detection and response to emerging risks.
Framed within the larger debate over censorship, government accountability, and medical transparency, Jefferey raises critical questions about how public health decisions are communicated—and who ultimately controls that narrative. As scrutiny intensifies over pandemic-era policies, the discussion underscores the importance of open scientific dialogue, rigorous safety monitoring, and restoring trust in public health institutions moving forward.
Foreign central banks and institution are selling off their holdings of US Treasury bonds. The war against Iran is driving bondholders to dump US government debt at a record pace, and foreign Treasury holdings at the NY Fed are at the lowest level in nearly fifteen years. The heavy liquidations are driving bond yields in the United States higher, and borrowing costs for government, and American households and businesses, are spiking higher.
Have you heard of the bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. You know, the bet about whether commodity prices would rise or fall in the 1980s? If you’re like most of the population, you haven’t. That’s because this wasn’t some mere wager about economics, this was a contest between the forces of good and the forces of evil. Spoiler: the forces of good won. And that’s why we’re not taught about this bet in the public indoctrination system. Let’s fix that. Today on The Corbett Report, James fills in the missing pieces about the most important bet you’ve never heard of and what it tells us about the value of human life.
Video player not working? Use these links to watch it somewhere else!
What is Donald Trump going to say about Iran on Wednesday night? Before I layout three possible outcomes, let’s examine what Trump is actually doing in terms of some key military assets (all of this is from open source reporting).
A-10 Squadron (Confirmed New Deployment)
Since Friday, March 27, 2026, the most prominently reported new US air asset movement to the Middle East (CENTCOM area of responsibility) has been a squadron-sized deployment of A-10C Thunderbolt II attack aircraft (Warthogs). Six A-10s from the Idaho Air National Guard’s 190th Fighter Squadron arrived at Pease Air National Guard Base (New Hampshire) as part of staging. On March 30, twelve A-10s from the Michigan Air National Guard’s 107th Fighter Squadron (Selfridge ANGB) departed Pease for RAF Lakenheath, UK (a common transit stop), in two flights of six. Another six followed on March 31. These ~12–18 aircraft are en route to the Middle East to reinforce or nearly double the existing A-10 presence there.
A-10s are already operating in theater (e.g., from the 75th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron) for close air support, anti-boat strikes in the Strait of Hormuz, drone interdiction, and coastal targeting. The surge supports intensified low-altitude operations against Iranian “mosquito fleet” vessels, mines, and remnants amid the broader campaign.
Apache Helicopters (AH-64) Squadron
US Central Command publicly confirmed the operational use of AH-64 Apache attack helicopters in late March (updates around March 16–18 and a specific confirmation on March 26). The 6-17th Air Cavalry Squadron (part of the 4th Infantry Division Combat Aviation Brigade, operating AH-64D/E variants) is the unit involved. It had been forward-deployed earlier (under prior rotations like Operation Inherent Resolve) but was newly integrated into Epic Fury strikes against Iranian boats, drones, and coastal targets in the southern flank/Hormuz area.
Several viral Facebook posts and YouTube videos (from accounts like “MovieFans.Lich,” “Live WWIIIRE,” and similar sensationalist pages) claim a “massive C-17 fleet” is deploying Apache helicopter squadrons alongside troops, armored vehicles, and equipment. These describe “dozens” or “over 112 C-17s” streaming into the region, with Apaches highlighted for their anti-armor, close air support, and anti-boat roles in rugged coastal terrain. Some videos include generic footage of folded Apaches inside C-17 cargo bays or all-female flight crews turning around quickly.
Posts from OSINT-focused X accounts (e.g., @TheIntelFrog, @Faytuks, @JewishWarrior13) detail dozens of C-17 flights since mid-March (e.g., ~35–50 flights tracked from March 12–24, with more ongoing) originating from bases like Fort Bragg/Pope AAF, Fort Campbell, Hunter AAF, and McChord AFB. Destinations include Ovda (Israel), Jordanian bases (King Faisal, King Hussein), and other CENTCOM hubs. These are linked to troop surges (including elements of the 82nd Airborne) and special operations forces, with some users speculating or claiming that attack helicopters like Apaches are part of the heavy equipment being airlifted. One analysis noted origins tied to units with aviation assets, such as the 160th SOAR (which operates helicopters, though primarily MH-6/ MH-60 rather than AH-64).
The new deployment of these assets are consistent with a military option that involves close-air support and/or attacks on Iranian fast boats and water drones.
So what is Trump going to announce?
Option 1 — Declare that negotiations with Iran via intermediaries (e.g., Pakistan) are progressing and that the United States is going to cease combat operations against Iran in order to support the negotiations and achieve a peaceful resolution.
Option 2 — Declare that victory has been achieved and that US forces will begin withdrawing from the region, leaving the status of the Strait of Hormuz in limbo.
Option 3 — Announce a massive air and ground operation to secure the freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.
The deployment of the A-10s and the Apaches can only mean one of two things:
It is a show of force intended to pressure Iran to return to the negotiating table.
The US is going to launch a massive attack against Iranian assets in the Persian Gulf, especially those located in and around the Strait of Hormuz.
Since Monday, March 30, 2026, President Donald Trump has made several public comments on the ongoing US-led Operation Epic Fury against Iran, primarily via Truth Social posts, interviews (including with the New York Post ), and remarks to reporters. His statements emphasize US military successes, threats of further escalation if demands are unmet, criticism of allies, and a potential near-term wind-down of direct US involvement.
On Monday, Trump described Iran as effectively “decimated” or “obliterated,” with its air force, navy, and many ships sunk or destroyed. He portrayed the campaign as highly successful and “way ahead of schedule” in prior context, but continued highlighting strikes on “long-sought-after targets.” He shared video footage on Truth Social of a massive explosion and secondary blasts in Isfahan (linked to strikes on uranium-related or military sites), without additional caption in one instance.
Trump also posted that the US was in “serious discussions with a new, and more reasonable, regime” to end operations. He warned that if the Strait of Hormuz is not “immediately ‘Open for Business’” and a deal is not reached shortly, the US would “completely obliterate” Iran’s electric generating plants, oil wells, Kharg Island, and possibly desalination plants. He framed this as concluding the US “lovely ‘stay’ in Iran.” In follow-up comments, he suggested the US could respond to Iranian actions “twenty times harder” with “Death, Fire, and Fury.”
Overall, Trump’s messaging since March 30 combines triumphalism about US achievements, escalatory warnings tied to the Strait of Hormuz and energy targets, frustration with allies, and signals of de-escalation with a short timeline for reduced US involvement. These comments have influenced market reactions (e.g., oil prices and equities) and drawn responses from Iranian officials and international observers.
Trump’s remarks since Monday have boosted the confidence of the folks on Wall Street and contributed to a significant surge in the stock market, with the Dow up 1,125 points. The price for BRENT oil dropped from 118 to 103 during Tuesday trading. This means the financial folks believe the war is going to end.
I think Trump is counting on Iran offering up some concessions in the face of the US buildup of additional air combat assets. Netanyahu reportedly just said Iran no longer poses a threat to Israel’s existence… A dramatic pivot if true. However, over the last few hours, Israel and the US carried out a large wave of attacks across Iran. They struck targets across several parts of Tehran, as well as in the cities of Karaj, Shahriar, Ahvaz, Shiraz, Abadeh, Isfahan, and Bandar Abbas. Iran will retaliate in force to these latest attacks.
In short, I believe Donald Trump will announce a major offensive to try to force Iran to release its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz… I believe that offensive will fail and that the war will escalate unless the US and Israel agree to two critical Iranian demands: the end of all sanctions and the removal of US military bases from the Persian Gulf arab countries.
Russia and China are two wild cards that could change the trajectory of the current war. If they engage and apply pressure on the diplomatic front — including ironclad security guarantees to Iran — Donald Trump may take the exit ramp.
What do you think?
Pascal Lottaz and I discussed the current situation in the Persian Gulf:
By the end of April 1945, American and Soviet armies had met in central Germany. Berlin was surrounded as Soviet troops were fighting Germans in a small pocket downtown. German units in Italy surrendered while American Generals were praised for their long, senseless campaign to slog up the mountainous boot of Italy. The war was over in Italy, but American bombers in central Italy could reach Austria, although missions would be dangerous as they were long range over mountains. If a bomber suffered any damage or minor engine problem, it would be unable to return to base and its crew would be forced to bail out. Vienna had been captured and Soviet troops were closing in on the city of Linz. Bombing Linz would be a nice news story to highlight the brilliance of some American Generals in Italy.
During World War I, for security reasons the Australian Government pursued a comprehensive internment policy against enemy aliens living in Australia.
Initially only those born in countries at war with Australia were classed as enemy aliens, but later this was expanded to include people of enemy nations who were naturalised British subjects, Australian-born descendants of migrants born in enemy nations and others who were thought to pose a threat to Australia’s security.
Australia interned almost 7,000 people during World War I, of whom about 4,500 were enemy aliens and British nationals of German ancestry already resident in Australia.
During World War II, Australian authorities established internment camps for three reasons – to prevent residents from assisting Australia’s enemies, to appease public opinion and to house overseas internees sent to Australia for the duration of the war.
Unlike World War I, the initial aim of internment during the later conflict was to identify and intern those who posed a particular threat to the safety or defence of the country. As the war progressed, however, this policy changed and Japanese residents were interned en masse. In the later years of the war, Germans and Italians were also interned on the basis of nationality, particularly those living in the north of Australia. In all, just over 20 per cent of all Italians resident in Australia were interned. … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News 